This invention relates to a form of personal transportation, and more particularly to a skate device having either one or two wheels and providing ease of movement for walking, running, coasting or standing with safety.
Roller skates are well known and have heretofore been used primarily as children's toys or adult recreational devices. Conventional roller skates have four wheels each made of metal or other hard substances which are usually exceptionally noisy during operation. Moreover, conventional roller skates elevate the skater close to the top of wheels, thus requiring the skater to make certain adjustments to the abnormal height and weight distribution caused by the elevation in order to maintain balance.
In order to overcome the disadvantages of conventional roller skates, the prior art has suggested several solutions. U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,931,012 and 2,980,436 to John J. Kosach describe single wheel skates with a large pneumatic tire capable of being tilted from the vertical by a rather complex foot and ankle supporting structure. While this prior art construction permits the wheel to be raised or lowered so that the base of the skate is near the ground, the exceptionally complex construction of these skates makes them unsuitable as a matter of expense and convenience for the every day use intended for the present invention.
Another prior art device, illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 3,476,399 to Lawrence A. Finn, is considerably simpler than the Kosach skates. It is, however, intended solely as a two wheel skate wherein both wheels of equal size are supported by a frame attached to the bottom of the shoe. This skate, due to its construction and wheel size, cannot readily be used for fast movement with safe and easy braking and turning as is the case of the present invention.
Other prior art skate devices involving one or more wheels have from time to time been proposed, as is evident from the disclosures of U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,017,162 to Alfred Naumann; 1,445,048 to F. B. Spross; 1,332,702 to Joseph Wisniewski; 1,379,250 to C. H. Clark; and Des. 233,619 to Charles B. Kelling. A review of the foregoing patents clearly demonstrates that these prior art devices are unable to achieve the below-described objects of the present invention with its simplicity of design.